Indiana Senators vote to ban gay marriage

Judiciary panel OKs resolution to amend constitution.

Judiciary panel OKs resolution to amend constitution.

February 01, 2007|JONDI SCHMITT Tribune Correspondent

INDIANAPOLIS -- In a hearing disrupted by protesters supporting same-sex marriage, the state Senate Judiciary Committee passed a joint resolution to amend the Indiana Constitution to provide that "marriage in Indiana consists only of the union of one man and one woman." Wednesday's meeting marked the third time the issue was put before the state Senate. It passed during the 2005 session, but the proposed amendment must be agreed to by a second General Assembly and then confirmed by a majority of the state's registered voters to become effective. "The point of this resolution is to move this issue, the definition of marriage as we have known it throughout the ages, out of the hands of the what is an activist effort to seek a judicial rewrite of the definition of traditional marriage," said Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Wheatfield, the resolution's author. "Do you trust the citizens of the state of Indiana to decide the future of one of the most fundamental building blocks of our society?" Hershman asked the committee. "I trust Hoosiers to make the right decision." Sen. Anita Bowser, D-Michigan City, questioned the constitutionality of the resolution. "As an elected official, you are sworn to uphold the constitution," she said to Hershman. "Why then are you violating that oath?" "Gay, or same-sex marriage, has never been a right in Indiana," Hershman answered. "You can't take away what has never been given." More than 100 people gathered in the Senate chambers to show support on one side or the other of the debate. Not all of the opposition was concerned with same-sex marriage, however. "My concern with SJR 7 is with subsection B," said Sen. John Broden, D-South Bend. "What was apparent during the hearing was the lack of clarity concerning the wording in subsection B." Subsection B states, "This Constitution or any other Indiana law may not be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents of marriage be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups." Broden and other Democratic committee members fear the wording will "tie the hands" of future General Assemblies, not allowing them to pass any statutes or laws regarding civil unions and related issues. Other concerns with subsection B were presented during public testimony. "This amendment would have an overwhelming impact on victims of domestic violence," said Kerry Blomquest of the Indiana Coalition of Domestic Violence. Blomquest said many people are concerned that passage of the amendment would invalidate domestic violence protections for unmarried couples, who account for 52 percent of domestic violence charges in the state. The main issue for both sides, however, was the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. "I ask you to promote, to respect and to honor what God has established by voting for this amendment," said the Rev. Andrew Hunt, pastor of the Body of Christ Community Church in Indianapolis. "I ask that you not allow a judge to put asunder what God has brought together." Eric Kanagy of Goshen said he is a gay man who owns three successful businesses and is a homeowner and volunteer at the Boys and Girls Club. In 2003, he was awarded the Governor's Award for Tomorrow's Leaders by the late Gov. Frank O'Bannon. While not originally from Indiana, he has been in the state since 1999. "Indiana has become my home," he said. "I am confused as to how the state of Indiana, the place I have come to call my home, how it is now turning its back on me. The resolution under discussion sends a clear message to me that I, as a gay male, am not welcome here in Indiana." After more than three hours of debate, the committee voted while protesters singing "We Shall Overcome" were escorted from Senate chambers by the Indiana State Police. The four Democratic members voted against the resolution and seven Republicans voted for it, thus passing the resolution on for discussion on the Senate floor.